HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2021-54 PA 2019-34, TTM 37922, CUP 2019-19, CDR 2019-27
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-54
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT FINDINGS THAT PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 2019-34 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37922, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2019-19, AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2019-27) IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
Whereas, Danny Singh, Tiger Petroleum, Inc. has filed an application with the City of Lake
Elsinore (City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2019 -34 (Tentative Tract Map No.
37922, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 2019 -19, and Commercial Design Review No. 2019-27)
to develop an approximately 32,695 square foot (SF) commercial retail center on 6.07 acres of
land (Project). The Project proposes to subdivide the site into six (6) lots ranging in size from 0.66
acres to 1.10 acres. The remaining 0.4 4-acre portion of the site will be dedicated for road rightof -
way purposes. The Project also proposes to construct a 3,400 SF convenience store with an
attached 1,525 SF Quick-Serve Restaurant, 4,089 SF gas fueling canopy, a 3,150 SF express car
wash, two (2) 4,850 SF retail buildings, a 3,320 SF drive -thru restaurant with an attached 1,600
SF retail building, and a 2,520 SF drive -thru restaurant with an attached 2,400 SF retail building
with 170 parking spaces, landscaping, and related site improvements. T he Project is located at
the northwest corner of Mountain Street and Lake Street (APNs: 389 -030-012, 013, 014, 015,
016, 017, and 018);
Whereas, Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
requires that all discretionary projects within a MSHCP Criteria Cell undergo the Lake Elsinore
Acquisition Process (LEAP) and the Joint Project Review (JPR) to analyze the scope of th e
proposed development and establish a building envelope that is consistent with the MSHCP
criteria;
Whereas, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP further requires that the City adopt consistency
findings demonstrating that the proposed discretionary entitlement complies with the MSHCP
Criteria Cell, and the MSHCP goals and objectives;
Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Section 17.415.070
(Conditional Use Permits), Section 17.415.050 (Major Design Review), Chapter 16.24 (Tentative
Map), Section 17.410.030 (Multiple Applications), and Section 17.410.070 (Approving Authority),
the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making
recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to tentative maps, conditional use
permits, and design review applications; and
Whereas, on December 21, 2021, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has
considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested
parties with respect to this item.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Commission has considered the Project and its consistency with the
MSHCP prior to recommending that the Council adopt Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP.
Docusign Envelope ID: 801220F4-5DEB-4CE9-A102-7843AEBF6EAE
PC Reso. No. 2021-54
Page 2 of 6
Section 2: That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Commission makes the following
findings for MSHCP consistency:
1. The Project is a project under the City’s MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an
MSHCP Consistency finding before approval.
The Property is located within an MSHCP criteria cell. Pursuant to the City’s MSHCP
Resolution, the Project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with
“Other Plan Requirements.” These include the Protection of Species Associated wi th
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow
Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures (MSHCP, § 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.4),
Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, § 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines
(MSHCP, § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP
Ordinance, § 4).
2. The Project is subject to the City’s LEAP and the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority’s (RCA) Joint Project Review processes.
The Project site is located within Criteria Cell #4155. Two LEAP applications were previously
submitted for most of the Project site and several adjacent parcels. These applications
received Joint Project Review approval from the Regional Conservation Auth ority (RCA), with
no conservation required. (JPR 08 -08-20-01/LEAP 2006-05 (Lake Street Marketplace) which
amended JPR 06-08-31-01.)
The proposed PA 2019 -34 (TTM 37922, CUP 2019-19, CDR 2019-27) (Lake and Mountain
Commercial Center) includes one additional parcel (APN 389 -030-012) and therefore, a formal
and complete LEAP application, LEAP 2020 -03, was submitted to the City on October 2 6,
2020 in order to amend the JPR 08 -08-20-01 to cover the additional parcel. The amended
JPR application, JPR 21-02-04-01 was submitted to the Regional Conservation Authority
(RCA). The RCA completed the review on June 1, 2021 and found the Project consis tent with
both the Criteria and Other Plan Requirements.
3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines.
The site has been assessed for riverine/riparian and vernal pools habitat and none were
determined to be present on-site. Evidence for this conclusion was provided by the lack of
riverine/riparian vegetation, vernal pools and in particular, clay soils. Due to the open, sloping
and disturbed nature of the site, it was determined that no possible areas of significant tire rut
formation or natural, level areas with clay soils or associated hardpan soils occur on the project
site.
The Project is therefore consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool
Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of
the MSHCP is required.
4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines.
Docusign Envelope ID: 801220F4-5DEB-4CE9-A102-7843AEBF6EAE
PC Reso. No. 2021-54
Page 3 of 6
The property is not in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for any narrow
endemic species, and no NEPSSA surveys are required.
The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Guidelines.
5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.
The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in certain
locations. Pursuant to MSHCP Figure 6 -2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Area), Figure 6 -3
(Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6 -4 (Burrowing Owl Survey
Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6 -5 (Mammal Species Survey Areas With Criteria Area),
burrowing owl surveys and surveys for Criteria Area species are required for the subject
property prior to approval of a development proposal. Therefore, f or MSHCP consistency,
additional focused rare plant surveys for these species are required.
The property is not within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA), and CASSA surveys
are not required. It is also not within survey areas for amphibian species (MSHCP Figure 6 -3)
or mammal species (MSHCP Figure 6 -5) and surveys for those species are not required.
However, a narrow sliver on the eastern side of the project site, adjacent to Lake Street, is
located in the survey area for burrowing owls. California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus
beecheyi) burrows that could serve as potential burrows for the Burrowing Owl are scarce in
all areas surveyed during the past 16 years. There are a few piles of brush and debris
scattered about the site that could potentially serve as Burrowing Owl habitat. There is a
culvert under Mountain Road adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. Both of these
features are outside the required mapped survey area but, as was m entioned, all potential
habitat in the original and present project area was assessed for Burrowing Owl habitat. All
potential areas and their close environs were examined for such evidence of Burrowing Owl
presence as molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, and excrement.
There are several piles of spoil in an adjacent vacant lot, overgrown with tall weeds, off -site to
the west. Other than this off-site area, no other evidence was observed on or within 500 feet
of the site.
As a mitigation measure for the proposed Project, the City of Lake Elsinore will require the
following:
Due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat, a 30 -day pre-construction survey for
burrowing owls is required prior to initial ground -disturbing activities (e.g., vegetation
clearing, clearing and grubbing, grading, tree removal, site watering, equi pment staging)
to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the
ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the
initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform the
Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies, and will need to
coordinate further with RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of
preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prio r to initiating ground
disturbance. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more
than 30 days, a pre-construction survey will again be necessary to ensure that burrowing
owl have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owl is found, the
same coordination described above will be necessary.
Docusign Envelope ID: 801220F4-5DEB-4CE9-A102-7843AEBF6EAE
PC Reso. No. 2021-54
Page 4 of 6
Therefore, the subject project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures
of the MSHCP.
6. The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
7. Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP sets forth guidelines that are intended to address indirect effects
associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area, where
applicable.
The guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address indirect effects
associated with development near MSHCP Conserved Areas. Developments in proximity to
MSHCP Conserved Areas may result in “edge effects” that might adversely affect biolog ical
resources within MSHCP Conserved Areas.
The Project site is not immediately adjacent to a defined MSHCP Conservation Area and thus
does not pose a risk of causing direct or indirect effects to any defined MSHCP Conservation
Areas. The closest MSHCP conserved land is approximately 3,600 feet west of the project
site, with closest MSHCP proposed conservation land approximately 2,800 feet to the
northwest. However, these lands are separated from the project site by developed single-
family residential developments that almost completely surround the project site. For these
reasons, the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are not applicable.
7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
The following vegetation type and other areas were found to occur on the project site:
Urban/Developed, disturbed habitat and non -native grassland. The Urban/Developed land
contains several occupied residences on the site, as well as ancillary structures. An
assortment of inactive vehicles and mechanical equipment occupies part of the northernmost
parcel, as does a small power substation. The disturbed habitat reflects that land without
structures that has been disked for fuel reduction purposes, leaving es sentially unvegetated
areas.
Non-native Grassland constitutes unoccupied land that has not been recently disked supports
a sparse cover of weedy species, including Short -pod Mustard (Hirschfeldia incana),
Horseweed (Conyza canadensis), Red Brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), Dovew eed
(Eremocarpus setigerus), Hare Barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and Telegraph
Weed (Heterotheca grandiflora).
This mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP vegetation
mapping requirements.
8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
The MSHCP acknowledges that brush management to reduce fuel loads and protect urban
uses and public health/safety shall occur where development is adjacent to conservation
areas. The closest MSHCP conserved land is approximately 3,600 feet west of the proj ect
site, with closest MSHCP proposed conservation land approximately 2,800 feet to the
northwest.
Docusign Envelope ID: 801220F4-5DEB-4CE9-A102-7843AEBF6EAE
PC Reso. No. 2021-54
Page 5 of 6
However, these lands are separated from the project site by developed single -family
residential developments that almost completely surround the project site.
Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in
Section 6.4 of the MSHCP.
9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee.
As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City’s MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits.
10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
Target conservation in Criteria Cell #4155 will range from 20%-30% of the Cell focusing in the
northeastern portion of the Cell. The Project site in not located in the northwest portion of the
criteria cell. Additionally, the project site does not meet the conservation requirements set forth
for Subunit 2 of the Elsinore Area Plan. Therefore, conservation of the project site or any
portion thereof, is not required. The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP.
Section 3: Based upon the evidence presented, both written and testimonial, and the
above findings, the Commission hereby recommends that the Council find that the Project is
consistent with the MSHCP.
Section 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Passed and Adopted on this 21st day of December, 2021.
John Gray
Chair
Attest:
______________________FOR:
Justin Kirk
Assistant Community Development Director
Docusign Envelope ID: 801220F4-5DEB-4CE9-A102-7843AEBF6EAE
PC Reso. No. 2021-54
Page 6 of 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Justin Kirk, Assistant Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
hereby certify that Resolution No. 2021 -54 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on December 21, 2021 and that the same
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Peters, Carrol and Klaarenbeek; Vice Chair Dobler; and Chair Gray
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
FOR:
Justin Kirk
Assistant Community Development Director
Docusign Envelope ID: 801220F4-5DEB-4CE9-A102-7843AEBF6EAE